Page 96 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT
For hearing on 18 August 2020
th
42 It is not surprising, given the above, that the Claimant was desperate to hide the
truth from his solicitors, advisers and insurers. Concealment of his dishonesty is
believed to be the primary reason he refused to make any financial declarations, to
discuss the £500,000, to say whether it was a loan or a gift or to participate as a
witness in the FD’s Final Hearing on 21 May 2018.
st

43 It was also an important factor in his decision to hide the AIG compensation by
transferring £500,000 into the safety of the FD’s mortgage account and to
15
disassociate himself from it. He was caught in a classic “Catch 22 situation”. He
wanted to get the incriminating compensation out of his accounts and to isolate
himself from it; to achieve this it had to be a “gift ” or irrevocable transfer.
16
44 In November and December 2016, the Claimant was awash with cash, glowing
with generosity before Christmas and throwing his money about like never before.

45 His bank statement shows the following payments:

a. 1 November 2016 Louise Siggers £10,000.00
st
b. 1 November 216 Unknown cheque (0042) £7,926.02
st
c. 21 November 2016 Louise Siggers £20,000.00
st
d. 21 December Five children? £1,000 £5,000.00
st
17
46 He has never claimed that the £10,000 (a) paid to the FD or the £5,000 (d) to
18
the children were other than gifts. Working notes, he left behind in Nutley Place
show he struggled to deal with the payment of £20,000 (c) which related to his
long-term promise to buy the FD a horse . He planned to claim back the £20,000
19
as a loan, then had second thoughts: even he could not argue that buying as horse
was “a contribution towards property”.

5. PAYMENT INTO THE MORTAGE ACCOUNT
47 The process the Claimant used to pay £500,000 into the mortgage account was
convoluted, devious and intended to disassociate his name from the transaction.
Details are set out in Exhibit B.

48 The points to note are

 the money was paid into the main mortgage account rather than into the front-
end or “feeder” current account;

 it could not be withdrawn - by anyone – unless and until the full mortgage was
redeemed;

 thus, the suggestion that the purpose of the advance was to cover living
expenses is a lie;
Page7

15 Plus £20,000 to buy her a horse and £5,000 to the children = total of £525,000
16 Complying with every legal definition of a gift. A loan would still remain his asset and would not meet his concealment
objectives
17 Making up the total of £525,000
Bates Number Bates No096
Believed to be compensation for his cancelled trip to the Himalayas
18
19 Originally when he sold his shares in Cruisin’